AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in C.C.Nos.180/2002, 186/2002, 187/2002 and 188/2002, against which he filed appeals. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence, against which, these revision petitions have been filed.
Heard.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that even though the revision petitioner produced the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.95/2000, 108/2001, 118/2001 and 190/2001 before the appellate court, the appellate court did not consider the said judgments stating that the appeals were pending against the said judgments. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the appeals filed against the said judgments were dismissed by the appellate court. The learned counsel has submitted that he is prepared to produce the certified copy of the said judgments before the court.
It appears that even though the trial court conducted trial separately in all these cases, the appellate court disposed of the appeals by a common judgment. Since the evidence in all the cases was not common, the appellate court ought to have decided the appeals separately. That apart, the judgment of the Civil Court is relevant as provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as , motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon the facts of each case. The appellate court did not consider the relevancy of the judgments produced by the revision petitioner before the appellate court. The appellate court also did not consider the evidence in each case independently while disposing of the appeal. For the said reasons, this Court is of the view that it is only just and proper to remit the cases to the appellate court with a direction to dispose of each appeal separately, in accordance with law. For the said reasons, I am inclined to set aside the common judgment passed by the appellate court in the above said cases.
In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed, setting aside the common judgment of the appellate court dated 9-7-2008 and the matter is remitted to the appellate court for fresh disposal of each of the appeals separately in accordance with law, affording opportunity of hearing to both sides.
Needless to state that both sides shall be at liberty to adduce additional evidence before the appellate court. The parties shall appear before the appellate court on 29.05.2018.